On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I've taught Pd quite a bit at this point, and I have watched many people
not understand the number boxes as a interactive GUI element. Its based
on my experience, that's all. There is no scientific process behind it.
It is also based on my experience learning Pd, back in the day. I
remember it took me a while before I could get the examples working, and
I had been working with Csound, Cmix, MusicKit and others before, so I
was quite familiar with the concepts.
Ok. My next question is then: why isn't numberbox taught before any
[output~] is introduced, in tutorials and courses that it's intended to go
in?
And then, if they shouldn't learn the numberbox at the beginning, then
when should they?... the numberbox is pretty much all over the place, and
its behaviour (compared to spinboxes and such) is not something that was
done randomly... well, understanding the creative process, then maybe it's
been done randomly, but it certainly wasn't kept randomly! ergonomically
it makes sense: it gives faster control on a number, than a spinbox does.
I'd even say it didn't go far enough. There is no sensitivity control for
dragging ("scrolling") into numberboxes. The [nbx] (IEMGUI) class has the
log-height feature, but of course it only works in log mode. With the
sensitivity control, the numberbox would be a clearer winner, but not as
much as if it actually had the spinbox's arrow. That's especially feasible
in the [nbx] class, which wastes a lot of space that could be recycled as
buttons.
Now, about scientific processes... it's not all to have a scientific
process or not... you get to different conclusions (scientific processes
or not) depending on what you aim for. This is a part that I don't see
many people talking about. One's aims determine assumptions about the
research, assumptions that might be implicit or else often worded like
they are only ones worth using. But usability studies are funded by
companies who have a mass diffusion model. Those companies live by selling
new licenses of software. Those licenses of software tend to be more sold
to beginners than to experimented users, if the userbase is in vast
expansion compared to the rate of license renewal. As the usability
studies are ordered by the marketing operations, the assumptions will be
as beginner-oriented as the marketing department is. This is why user
interfaces are geared towards what the first impression will be like, at
the expense of the following years of use, with a tendency to ignore the
fact that people learn, because that learning only occurs after the
license is bought. This is IMHO why usability studies and famous UI
guideline books have to be approached with suspicion, regardless of how
tight their scientific and statistical standards are.
Free, community-oriented software isn't necessarily different. Rationally,
it depends on their score-keeping: if they are mainly motivated by getting
new beginner users, they will just do the same as companies that are
mainly selling licenses to new beginner users. Non-rationally, a project
could have any other userbase goals but still act like they're aiming for
beginners, because they follow UI advice designed for new beginner users
without questioning whether it really applies.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801, Montréal, Québec
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
